- 8 -
trustee as Robert Hogue.
H. Hearings on Respondent’s Motion
This matter was called for hearing at the Court’s motions
sessions held in Washington, D.C., on September 25 and October
23, 2002. Counsel for respondent appeared at the hearings and
offered argument and evidence in support of respondent’s motion
to dismiss, as supplemented. There was no appearance by or on
behalf of Deschutes at either hearing, nor did Deschutes file any
written statement pursuant to Rule 50(c).
Discussion
According to respondent, Deschutes failed to show that
Robert Hogue is its duly appointed trustee. Respondent asserts
that as a result, no valid petition has been filed and the Court
must dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. We agree.
It is well settled that the taxpayer has the burden of
proving the Court’s jurisdiction by affirmatively establishing
all facts giving rise to our jurisdiction. See Patz Trust v.
Commissioner, 69 T.C. 497, 503 (1977); Fehrs v. Commissioner, 65
T.C. 346, 348 (1975); Wheeler's Peachtree Pharmacy, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 35 T.C. 177, 180 (1960); Natl. Comm. To Secure
Justice v. Commissioner, 27 T.C. 837, 838-839 (1957).
Furthermore, unless the petition is filed by the taxpayer, or by
someone lawfully authorized to act on the taxpayer's behalf, we
are without jurisdiction. See Fehrs v. Commissioner, supra at
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011